Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance

Ethics, Sustainable Development and International Co-Operation

Chukwumerije Okereke

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2007
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134126873
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book is an ethical critique of existing approaches to sustainable development and international environmental cooperation, providing a detailed and structured account of the tensions, normative shifts and contradictions that currently characterize it.

With specific focus on three environmental regimes, the volume explores the way various notions of justice feature both implicitly and explicitly in the design of global environmental policies. In so doing, the dominant conceptions of justice that underpin key global environmental policies are identified and criticised on the basis of their compatibility with the normative essence of global sustainable development.

Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance demonstrates that whilst moral norms inflict far greater impact in regime development than is currently acknowledged by orthodox approaches to regime analysis, the core polices remain rooted in two neo-liberal interpretations of justice which undermine the ability to achieve sustainable development and international justice.

It will appeal to students and scholars of politics, philosophy, international relations, geography and law.

Part I
Setting the scene

1
Introduction

This book is about the politics of justice in institutions for global environmental governance. It explores the way various notions of justice feature both implicitly and explicitly in the design of global environmental policies based on the analysis of three global environmental regimes. The three regimes chosen are the ones established by: (i) the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III); (ii) the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; and (iii) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the related Kyoto Protocol. By paying close and detailed attention to the primary texts of regimes and, in some cases, the associated negotiation processes, I seek to capture the shifts and tensions that occur both in policy and discursive terms as a result of the increasing contestations for equity and distributive justice in the operation of multilateral environmental regimes. In practice, this is conceived as a way of extrapolating the dominant conceptions of justice that underpin key global environmental policies, with a view, in turn, to assessing the suitability of such approaches. At the same time, the analysis serves as a means of highlighting the prospects and limitations of aspirations for distributive equity in environmental regimes, especially within the context of North-South equity.

The book addresses two distinct but closely related arguments. First, I argue that, although current international environmental regimes reflect a variety of (often contradictory) notions of justice, they are very much determined by conceptions of justice that are consistent with the neoliberal political economic agenda. These take one, or both, of two forms: justice as property rights, associated with Robert Nozick, and justice as mutual advantage, as defended by David Gauthier. I further argue that these neoliberal ideas of justice do not offer a promising base for the pursuit of global sustainable development, particularly as articulated by the Brundtland Report, as they are incapable of delivering on the promise of distributive justice, which is embedded in the idea. It follows from this premise that dominant approaches to environmental sustainability fail because they do not take sufficiently seriously the role of international equity or justice understood in more redistributive terms. Hence, although it is widely asserted that equity and justice are important elements of international environmental regimes, on looking closer, it appears that a great deal of the concern for distributional justice in these institutions has been largely co-opted for neoliberal ends, much to the disadvantage of the already marginalized sections of the global community.

The second argument, which follows on from the first, is that conventional approaches to regime analysis are seriously defective to the extent that they are unable to represent and account for the contestations for distributional justice that so glaringly characterize the development of regimes. I argue that standard international relations approaches to regime analysis are dominated by positivist assumptions that fail to take due account of normative concerns. Indeed, I seek to demonstrate that a significant aspect of the processes of regime development can be explained only by focusing on the complex interplay between moral norms—mainly ideas of international distributive equity and neoliberal economic values.

Before proceeding any further it is important to make three conceptual clarifications. The first is that this book is concerned chiefly with intragenerational justice, which addresses the need for the equitable distribution of resources, risks and responsibilities among the states and/or peoples of the present generation (Rawls 1971, 1999; Beitz 1979; Pogge 1992; Brown 1992, 2004). Other dimensions of justice (not given much attention in this work) include intergenerational equity, which addresses issues of justice between present and future generations (Dobson 1998; Barry B 1999), and interspecies justice, which focuses on justice between human and non-human natural beings (Low and Gleeson 1998; Attfield 2003, 2005; Soper 2005). The second is that the analysis in this book focuses mainly on the conception of sustainable development as articulated by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report). At the same time, whereas some authors argue that there is a difference between sustainable development and environmental sustainability, I take the view (an equally popular one) that environmental protection is inherent in the concept of sustainable development and therefore use the two terms interchangeably throughout this book. Third, the term ‘equity’ is used, following the traditions of Aristotle and Aquinas, to refer to more specific ‘forms of judgement that remedies the injustice of positive law at the point of application by attending to particular features of the persons and circumstances involved…so that equity is not generically different from justice’ (Tasioulas 1989:148). Justice is thus the key term in this book and equity is used mainly as a means of avoiding monotony.

Notions of intragenerational equity have in recent years pushed into the frontline of global environmental sustainability discourse with a clamour for environmental justice featuring increasingly in ‘contemporary concerns with the issues of risk, sustainability and political ecology’ (Bulkeley et al. 2003:1). Contrary to the hitherto prevailing notion that sustainability simply entails conservation and the effort to bequeath subsequent generations with a wholesome earth (cf. Pinchot 1910; Leopold 1968; Naess 1973), it is now widely held that sustainable development requires, indeed is only realisable via, a just, fair and equitable distribution of available resources both within and between generations (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987; Guha and Martinez-Alier 1997; Redclift 2000; Low and Gleeson 2001:3; Spangenberg 2001:29–32; Attfield 2003; Schlosberg 2005:102; Walker and Bulkeley 2006:657). This awareness has, in turn, made questions of distributive justice a vital aspect in the negotiation of multilateral environmental agreements and the operation of institutions for international environmental governance (Grubb et al. 1992; Paterson 1996a; Agarwal et al. 2001; Tol et al. 2004; Paavola 2005:143; Adger et al. 2006).

Indeed, the ethical dimensions of global environmental change and relevant institutions are fast becoming central to the discourse on sustainability (IPCC 1995, 2001). This development is closely tied to the fact that institutions for global environmental governance have metamorphosed from the traditional role of preservation of endangered non-human species to the high-profile and more sensitive roles of resource allocation, as in the case of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; burden sharing, as in the case of the climate change regime; and regulation of trade, as in the case of the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. In general, regimes now play vital roles in granting access to and control over natural resources between states and people within the global community.

Hence, in assuming these regulative and distributive roles within the context of a heightened awareness of disparities, ecological interdependence and a earth’s limited ‘carrying capacity’ (Meadows et al. 1972), environmental regimes have become sites for intense hegemonic struggles and the subject of vitriolic debates. At one level are those who debate the ‘internal design features and exogenous issue-area factors’ (Hall 1998:86) that constrain or boost the effectiveness of regimes (cf. Young 1989a; Susskind and Ozawa 1992; Keohane and Levy 1996). But becoming equally important is the issue of how policies organized with respect to a ‘singular grand narrative’ (Low and Gleeson 2001:2) may possibly reflect the priorities of cultures and states that not only heed disparate value systems but also occupy different positions in the international political economy (cf. Kelly 1990; Dyer 1993; Chatterjee and Finger 1994; Sachs 1999; McCarthy 2004). Laferriere and Stoett (1999:107–108), in their book International Relations Theory and Ecological Thought, capture this concern very well when they state that:

Though the prospect of increased co-operation on environmental issues through institutional design and growth may please many environmentalists, it may be coming as part of a package deal that in fact decreases heterogeneity, increases extractive activity, and emphasises technocratic problem solving to what are in essence political and even, philosophical dilemmas.

This concern is also implicit in Achterberg’s assertion that the existence of global environmental problems not only raises ‘ethical issues of first importance for global environmental governance’ but also creates a condition that demands that ‘the ethical basis and forms of global governance’ be held up for scrutiny and questions (Achterberg 2001:183; cf. Low and Gleeson 2001:3–7; Bernstein 2001; Meyer 2005). Attfield (2003:159) is equally of the view that the global nature of many environmental problems makes the need for a ‘global, cosmopolitan normative ethic, and its [more explicit] recognition on the part of agents’ fundamental on the road to a just and sustainable global society. Low and Gleeson (2001:2) insist that the ‘creation of new institutions for environmental governance must be accompanied by the development of human values’. They point out that institutions are yoked with ethical concerns in ways that make the two concepts inseparable, and therefore argue for the development of what they call ‘an ethical “polyphonic” narrative of a new level and the institutions which will allow such politics to flourish’ (ibid.: 2). However, for Spangenberg (2001), the entire clamour for a ‘polyphonic ethic’ in institutions for global environmental governance comes together in the quest for international distributive justice. He argues that, insofar as the concept of sustainable development rests squarely on two notions of equity (intragenerational and intergenerational), ‘distributional justice will need to be constantly demonstrated and contested in every step in the process of change’ on the road to global sustainability (ibid.: 41).

Spangenberg’s argument echoes the position of the developing countries in the run-up meetings to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm 1972). In preparation for this conference, which later marked the successful institutionalization of the environmental problematique in the international agenda, a panel of 27 experts, mainly from the developing countries, predicted that one of the major issues that would confront the international community in its search for more sustainable pathways to development would be the question of global distributive equity. The group, which articulated its view in what later became known as the Founex Report, noted that, although increased attention to global environmental protection would inevitably impose some constraints on all states alike, ‘one of the major questions which would arise’ as nations began to co-operate to grapple with diverse environmental problems would be ‘how the higher cost of future development would be shared as between developed and developing nations’ (Founex Report 1971:7). Further, the group expressed the concern that, given the extreme disparity in the political and economic strength between the developed and the developing countries, it was not improbable that the poor developing countries could be made to ‘bear the extra burden of global environmental protection without reaping any benefits that may arise’.

Clearly there is a scope for a better allocation of the presently available resources…. If the concern for human environment reinforces the commitment to development, it must also reinforce the commitment to international aid. It should provide a stimulus for augmenting the flow of resources from the advanced to the developing countries. Unless appropriate economic action is taken, there are a number of ways in which the developing countries could suffer rather than profit from the new emphasis on the environment.

(Ibid: 3)

This view later found expression in much of the text of the Stockholm declaration. It was reflected in general admissions, such as ‘the industrialized countries should make efforts to reduce the gap between themselves and the developing countries’, as well as more specific statements, such as ‘substantial quantities of financial and technological assistance as a supplement to the domestic effort of the developing countries and such timely assistance as may be required’ are crucial measures in the pursuit of a decent global human environment [United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) 1972: Principles 7, 9, 14].

Apparently inspired by the eloquent articulation of the need to integrate an emphasis on environmental protection and the need for global distributive justice in the Founex Report, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) later asserted that global distributive equity is a central element in the quest for global environmental sustainability and in the international co-operative arrangements that might be designed to achieved this goal. The Brundtland Report states in unmistakable terms that ‘inequality is the planet’s main environmental problem’ and, hence, that ‘it is futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality’ (WCED 1987:3, 6, passim). The report, accordingly, recommends considerable international redistribution of wealth from the North to the South, insisting that such a step is fundamental to the search for global sustainable development. Subsequently, from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) conference in Rio de Janeiro (1992) to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (2002), issues of North-South equity and distributional justice have become one the most contentious elements in the global sustainable development discourse. Maurice Strong (the former Chairman of the Rio Earth Summit) could very well have been reflecting on this situation when he said:

[N]ever more could the environment issue be considered only in the narrow context of the pollution problems of the rich. It could only be considered as inextricably linked with the development needs and aspirations of developing countries and the imperatives for new dimensions of co-operation and equity in north south relationship.

(Strong 1999:1)

Similarly, Rowlands (1991:267) identifies four key preconditions for the success of global environmental agreements and says of equity that:¹

a second major precondition for co-operation is the presence of fairness, in a system wide sense…. Such equity will not only be based on a comparative analysis of costs and benefits, but it will also be based on the less tangible factors, such as history and ideology. This issue of fairness will continue to play a significant role in the pursuit of co-operative agreements on issues of global environmental change.

In general, the consensus is that international distributive equity is a crucial factor both as a rationale for regimes but also for their acceptability and effectiveness (Young 1989b:368; Hurrell and Kingsbury 1992; Conca et al. 1995a; Low and Gleeson 2001; Paterson 1996a; Toth 1999; Athanasiou and Baer 2002; Paavola and Lowe 2005; Adger et al. 2006).

But despite, or perhaps as a result of, the commonplace assertions that justice is central to the operation of, and the rationale for, regimes and despite the widespread knowledge that ‘there are a number of different viewpoints on what an equitable arrangement looks like’ (Paterson 1996a:181), the general implications of equity notions and justice aspirations in regime policies remain grossly understudied. There is a burgeoning literature concerned with various aspects of environmental justice at the international level; however, the focus of most of these studies usually takes one, or both, of two forms: to assert the need for justice and equity in the development of a particular environmental regime (Shue 1992; Humphreys 1996; Shukla 1999; Adger et al. 2006) or to show that specific regime policies impact unfairly on certain sections of the global community (Leggett 2000; Agarwal et al. 2001; Tol et al. 2004; Bachram 2005). There are also, especially with the case of climate change, several discussions concerning how different policy proposals map onto particular conceptions of justice (Grubb et al. 1992; Banuri et al. 1996; Young 1992; Adger et al. 2006). Therefore, although there are many elaborate discussions focusing on the importance of equity in regimes, there is not as much scholarship devoted to showing the conceptions of justice that actually prevail in existing international regimes. At the same time, rigorous exercises dedicated to accounting for these ethical contestations and the policy shifts they engender are quite sparse. As such, terms such as ‘equity’, ‘equitable’, ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ are frequently used in academic and policy circles but are very poorly ...

Table of contents

• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Part I Setting the scene
• Part II Empirical analysis of three regime texts
• Part III Normative critique
• Notes
• References
• Index